QUETTA: Balochistan Chief Minister Sarfraz Bugti has pointed the finger at the Frontier Works Organisation (FWO) over the condition of the Turbat-Mand Road, but official records present a different account—raising questions about whether the chief minister had the complete facts before criticising the organisation in the provincial assembly.
Speaking on the floor of the Balochistan Assembly, Bugti expressed dissatisfaction with FWO’s work, claiming that roads in areas where the organisation had undertaken projects were in poor condition.
“Our experience with FWO has been very bad,” he said.
However, the official records cited in response to his criticism present a different account of the Turbat-Mand Road project, putting the spotlight on the information provided to the chief minister and the role of his own administration in overseeing public infrastructure projects.
The central question is straightforward: did Bugti have the complete facts before criticising FWO, or was he relying on an incomplete briefing from his own team?
The 115-kilometre Turbat-Mand Road project cannot be judged through broad accusations alone. Establishing responsibility requires a clear account of which organisation constructed each section, who awarded the contracts, which departments supervised the work and who was accountable for construction quality.
If several contractors were involved, holding one organisation responsible for the condition of the entire road without examining each section risks overlooking the responsibilities of other parties. The relevant contracts, payment records, inspection reports and completion documents should establish who did what—and where any shortcomings occurred.
That is precisely where Bugti’s criticism demands closer scrutiny. Before publicly targeting FWO, the chief minister’s advisers and relevant departments should have provided him with a documented breakdown of the project, including contractual obligations, construction progress, quality assessments and any outstanding deficiencies.
A chief minister cannot demand accountability from a contractor while leaving questions about his own government’s oversight unanswered.
If the provincial administration had identified defects in the road, it should be able to show which sections failed to meet specifications, who was responsible for those sections, what inspections found and whether corrective action was ordered. If the government lacked this information, that would raise serious questions about the quality of its monitoring and the advice reaching the chief minister.
Either way, the public deserves more than competing claims.
The government must clarify which companies worked on the 115-kilometre route, which authority awarded and supervised each contract, how payments were approved and whether the completed work was inspected against contractual standards. Without that information, assigning blanket responsibility to FWO risks turning a question of public accountability into a political exchange.
The issue is not whether FWO should be criticised when evidence establishes shortcomings. No organisation should be exempt from scrutiny. The issue is whether the criticism is supported by a complete, verifiable record—and whether the provincial government is prepared to subject its own decisions and oversight to the same scrutiny.
If Bugti’s briefing was incomplete, he must explain why his administration failed to provide the facts. If the records were available, he should make them public and allow the evidence to establish responsibility.
The stakes extend beyond one road. Infrastructure projects in Balochistan involve public money, administrative oversight and the delivery of essential links for communities and businesses. Delays, defective construction or weak supervision can impose real costs on people who depend on these routes. Identifying responsibility is therefore a duty of governance, not merely an argument between officials and a construction organisation.
The same principle applies to concerns about favouritism, conflicts of interest or the award of contracts. Such allegations must be tested against procurement documents, contractual records and an impartial review—not treated as established facts without evidence. Every contractor, department and decision-maker involved must be subject to the same standard.
FWO has undertaken major infrastructure projects across Pakistan, including roads in difficult terrain and other strategic infrastructure. But its broader reputation cannot settle the question of its performance on any individual project. That must be determined through project-specific records and an examination of its actual contractual responsibilities.
Nor can the provincial government rely on criticism alone. Its responsibility includes awarding contracts transparently, monitoring construction, verifying completed work and taking action when contractual obligations are not met.
Bugti has every right to question the performance of a public works organisation. But that right carries an equally serious obligation to establish the facts before assigning blame. Public accountability cannot be selective: if FWO must answer for its work, the departments that awarded, supervised and inspected the contracts must answer for their decisions as well.
The chief minister should now ensure that his administration publishes a clear account of the Turbat-Mand Road project, identifying the contractors responsible for each section, the authorities overseeing the work, the payments made and the findings of quality inspections.
Until that record is presented, the questions surrounding the project will remain: who was responsible for the road’s condition, what did the government know, and why were those details not made clear before the chief minister criticised FWO in the assembly?
Before pointing fingers at FWO, Bugti must ensure that his own government can account for every relevant contract, every supervisory decision and every rupee of public money spent on the project.
